John Reid this morning was obviously brainwashed into believing that the 9/11 incident which he repeatedly referred to, justified sending British Troops to Afghanistan and other lost causes.
The Afghanistan deployment can only serve as a expensive exercise and will not change the situation in that country .The fact is as soon as the detachment leaves, the situation will return to as before.Similar to that which has been happening over the last 200years.
Apart from the experience for them it is a wasted use of high quality soldiers.
Share This Page:
Afghanistan
-
Wee Willy Winkie
- Member
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Wed 08 Feb, 2006 2:00 pm
- Location: Wirral, Merseyside.
I wouldnt say its a lost cause. The troops will help provide security so that other reconstruction programs can take place. A mate of mine is going out in July/August to train Afghan jouranalists. Without troops on the ground, such programs would not be possible. Its not just militants that they need protection from, but ciminals, warlords and the general population too.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan were a wrong move it was our PM trying to show his special relationship with G Bush.Wee Willy Winkie wrote:and what do you suggest they do instead, Iraq??
Our troops do a good job,the best, wherever they are sent.
Both these countries are long term problems ,some created by the intervention of USA policy,which will not be solved for many years. The Russians learnt their lesson in Afghanistan previuosly. Afghanistan is a tough country and will never be converted to the western way of life.This goes for Iraq as well,when the British tried to sort them out in the 1920's.
Ok so there are problems in both countries which are just as bad as before .There has to be a way of finding away of leaving these countries honorably.We must not continue to follow the USA into these situations.
-
Paratrooper01
- Member
- Posts: 1158
- Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2003 8:28 pm
- Location: Colly
- Contact:
Its already a democracy if im not mistaken. They recently had their first vote.Sprey wrote: Afghanistan is a tough country and will never be converted to the western way of life.
Are you a heroin addict? If not, why are you so against eradicating it from our country? I personally hate drugs and will support anything thats going to help get rid of them.
The Russians made a big mistake of "invading" afghan. Their tactics were poor and they deserved to lose. We on the other hand are not "invading" afghanistan. We are there to help them restore law and order in a very unstable country where people are being treated like sh*t by the Taliban...only recently a female school teacher was executed for something silly (cant remember exact details).
This operation is Canadian-led by the way, not the USA. And, Op Herrick is a continuing deployment of British troops to the area and we will not leave until the job is done, even if we are there for 10 years.
Utrinque Paratus - READY FOR ANYTHING!
Democracy may originate from the West, but it should not be viewed as a Western implemented system. The US and UK and the other forces are not in afghanistan to provide them for a 'western way of life.'
Although I have to disagree that the Taliban can be considered responsible for all the problems in Afghanistan while they were in power or thereafter. True, they were oppressive. But they did not instigate such oppressiveness.
Nor do I follow the line that 'the West' went in there, or are in there, for the good of Afghans. They have experienced benign affects but they were not our motivations. The goal of troops now is to support stability that existed under the Taliban, without the latter actually being there, while also conducting 'anti-AQT' operations in the border region (which is the imperative and major responsibility of the US army).
To sum it up, the governments went in thier to remove the Taliban and are now there to prevent them from returning to power - if that is indeed possible.
Whether or not ex-Taliban re still in control or large areas remian under control of warlords, or whether or not minr human rights abuses take place is currently irrelevent although not entirely ideal. But the warlords and ex-Taliban who simply 'switched sides' are still crucial factors that cant be overlooked nor currently replaced.
I agree that Iraq was wrong. Not necessarily the removal of Saddam Hussein, but the invasion. Im one of the rare breed who believe that it was possible to work alongside the Baath part in the overthrow of Saddam and the removal of the more extreme Baathists without the necessity for such destruction that took place in 2003 or after. But I dont want to turn this into a debate about Iraq, since Afghanistan is not subject to the debate that should take place.
Although I have to disagree that the Taliban can be considered responsible for all the problems in Afghanistan while they were in power or thereafter. True, they were oppressive. But they did not instigate such oppressiveness.
Nor do I follow the line that 'the West' went in there, or are in there, for the good of Afghans. They have experienced benign affects but they were not our motivations. The goal of troops now is to support stability that existed under the Taliban, without the latter actually being there, while also conducting 'anti-AQT' operations in the border region (which is the imperative and major responsibility of the US army).
To sum it up, the governments went in thier to remove the Taliban and are now there to prevent them from returning to power - if that is indeed possible.
Whether or not ex-Taliban re still in control or large areas remian under control of warlords, or whether or not minr human rights abuses take place is currently irrelevent although not entirely ideal. But the warlords and ex-Taliban who simply 'switched sides' are still crucial factors that cant be overlooked nor currently replaced.
I agree that Iraq was wrong. Not necessarily the removal of Saddam Hussein, but the invasion. Im one of the rare breed who believe that it was possible to work alongside the Baath part in the overthrow of Saddam and the removal of the more extreme Baathists without the necessity for such destruction that took place in 2003 or after. But I dont want to turn this into a debate about Iraq, since Afghanistan is not subject to the debate that should take place.
No offence Para, but that's a News of the World argument...and it's never going to happen. Even if we could eliminate the heroin trade from Afghanistan (also never going to happen while it remains 80% or so of their GDP), it would be coming from somewhere else within 6 months. You cannot kill supply without first killing demand.Paratrooper01 wrote:Are you a heroin addict? If not, why are you so against eradicating it from our country? I personally hate drugs and will support anything thats going to help get rid of them.
Furthermore, if the UK & US governments were really serious about stopping the Afghan heroin trade, we would start buying it. Opiates from the poppies grown there are used in vast numbers of legal drugs. Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be too hot on this, however, as it would be more expensive for them - ie they wouldn't be able to sell the drugs at quite the ridiculous mark-up they do in the US & elsewhere.
Of course, these two things must be completely unrelated, as corporate money influencing such a huge and important sphere of public policy would be absolutely corrupt.
PS I am, however, all for being in Afghan to give the Taliban a good kicking.
Paratrooper01
First Paragraph
The elected government may have been put there by a democratic vote, full stop.They must also provide a working democratic government. Without the need of an outside force to implement it.
Second Paragraph
?????
Third paragraph.
The instabilty has been cause by the American heavy handed attempt to remove the Taliban which has hardly been a success.
Fourth paragraph
The Canadians are there by agreement or at the request of the Coalition because they were able to provide the forces and logistics necessary while the Americans(who are still there anyway) are stretched in Iraq.
The forces engaged in any of these theatres will give there best from whichever country they are from.There is no question about that.
First Paragraph
The elected government may have been put there by a democratic vote, full stop.They must also provide a working democratic government. Without the need of an outside force to implement it.
Second Paragraph
?????
Third paragraph.
The instabilty has been cause by the American heavy handed attempt to remove the Taliban which has hardly been a success.
Fourth paragraph
The Canadians are there by agreement or at the request of the Coalition because they were able to provide the forces and logistics necessary while the Americans(who are still there anyway) are stretched in Iraq.
The forces engaged in any of these theatres will give there best from whichever country they are from.There is no question about that.
[img]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif[/img]
I'm working on it !
I'm working on it !
gkayesem
" To sum it up, the governments went in thier to remove the Taliban and are now there to prevent them from returning to power - if that is indeed possible. "
I understand your post, The highlighted section give an idea what to expect.
The fact is this a operation has spread the Taliban supporters even further round the wolrd than they were before.Who knows what mayhem they will create and when?
" To sum it up, the governments went in thier to remove the Taliban and are now there to prevent them from returning to power - if that is indeed possible. "
I understand your post, The highlighted section give an idea what to expect.
The fact is this a operation has spread the Taliban supporters even further round the wolrd than they were before.Who knows what mayhem they will create and when?
[img]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif[/img]
I'm working on it !
I'm working on it !
I dont want to deny Paratrooper a reply but:
A special relationship has existed between the UK and USA for decades. Its not Blair's doing. I dont like the man, but he can not be critiscised for his political skills - which is probably why I dont like him (its a political necessity to avoid the truth). Relations with the US is a top priority for most countries, if not all.
It was an elected government in Iraq. The conditions may not be ideal, but the vote showed that democracy is possible and that the Iraqi people would favour it. It has been proven that elements of the resistance would put down the guns to vote (which has happened even among the smaller, more 'extreme' groups - not just the Shia coalition). The vote also gave the government legitimacy. Elections always had to take place before troop withdrawal for any chance that they would continue afterwards. It was also proven that the US military may have influenced the vote through supporting various media outlets and the like, but the fact that parties that are opposed to the occupation took part, in my view, proves its validity. Unless you think that another autocratic ruler should have been put up and the coalition should have buggered off. Personally though, I cant decide whether or not we should now withdraw.
The Taliban have been removed. They havent been completely annihilated - which is impossible - but they are no longer a collective organisation in control of the country. But thats like saying Farmer Jack owns 100hecteres - its true, but its politically insignificant. They may still control parts of Afghanistan, while some may have simply 'switched sides' but thier removal was a relative success. The goal was to remove them from power, not to completely annihilate them. Thier removal from power also means that Islamic militants no longer have 'a country of thier own' within Afghanistan. Any instability in Afghanistan is largely because the country has never experienced fully stability. It also depends how you define instability. Does regular criminal activity in England make it an unstable country? Afghanistan is stable in that civil war is unlikely, and that is a great deal because of the presence of NATO forces.
The Canadians are part of the coalition, just like the United States is part of the coalition. I dont know if the US is streched, but thier losses are being overstated, although it can not be denied that thier losses are significant.
A special relationship has existed between the UK and USA for decades. Its not Blair's doing. I dont like the man, but he can not be critiscised for his political skills - which is probably why I dont like him (its a political necessity to avoid the truth). Relations with the US is a top priority for most countries, if not all.
It was an elected government in Iraq. The conditions may not be ideal, but the vote showed that democracy is possible and that the Iraqi people would favour it. It has been proven that elements of the resistance would put down the guns to vote (which has happened even among the smaller, more 'extreme' groups - not just the Shia coalition). The vote also gave the government legitimacy. Elections always had to take place before troop withdrawal for any chance that they would continue afterwards. It was also proven that the US military may have influenced the vote through supporting various media outlets and the like, but the fact that parties that are opposed to the occupation took part, in my view, proves its validity. Unless you think that another autocratic ruler should have been put up and the coalition should have buggered off. Personally though, I cant decide whether or not we should now withdraw.
The Taliban have been removed. They havent been completely annihilated - which is impossible - but they are no longer a collective organisation in control of the country. But thats like saying Farmer Jack owns 100hecteres - its true, but its politically insignificant. They may still control parts of Afghanistan, while some may have simply 'switched sides' but thier removal was a relative success. The goal was to remove them from power, not to completely annihilate them. Thier removal from power also means that Islamic militants no longer have 'a country of thier own' within Afghanistan. Any instability in Afghanistan is largely because the country has never experienced fully stability. It also depends how you define instability. Does regular criminal activity in England make it an unstable country? Afghanistan is stable in that civil war is unlikely, and that is a great deal because of the presence of NATO forces.
The Canadians are part of the coalition, just like the United States is part of the coalition. I dont know if the US is streched, but thier losses are being overstated, although it can not be denied that thier losses are significant.
Dont forget that the Taliban is simply a religious-political party. Dont confuse Islamic militants and the Taliban. They existed together in Afghanistan prior to 2002 because a) niether had control over the other and b) they shared a different perspectve of Islam. If they shared the same perspective, they would not have ben tow distinct entities.
One of the reasons why Bin Laden did not openly boast about 9/11 was that he simply did not want to provoke the Taliban. The relationship between Mullah Omar and OBL/MAZ was on edge to say the least.
'al Qaeda' is an international, anti-nationalist, anti-western, anti-modernist movement. The Taliban was a domestic relgious 'sect' compirsed of moslty Pakistani relgious students (hence Taliban) who wanted to set up what they saw as a perfect Muslim society based upon Sharia law.
It must be said that quite a significant number of Taliban were simply travellers or devout Muslims (doctors, students, etc) who saw Afghanistan as the closest thing to an ideal Muslim society. They were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
True, some may have allied themselves with OBL and other militant leaders and elements have begun to work together. But a lot simply did 'go home' but they are not necessarily a threat.
A good example is that 'American-Taliban' (cant remember his name). He was a Muslim who travelled to Pakistan to study the language and Islam. He was shunned (I think becuase he was a poor student), so went to Afghanistan to learn were he was given a kalashnikov and sent to the front. He was not necessarily a terrorist or a threat.
This may sound like a cheap source, but watch the film 'Kandahar' and you will see my point.
One of the reasons why Bin Laden did not openly boast about 9/11 was that he simply did not want to provoke the Taliban. The relationship between Mullah Omar and OBL/MAZ was on edge to say the least.
'al Qaeda' is an international, anti-nationalist, anti-western, anti-modernist movement. The Taliban was a domestic relgious 'sect' compirsed of moslty Pakistani relgious students (hence Taliban) who wanted to set up what they saw as a perfect Muslim society based upon Sharia law.
It must be said that quite a significant number of Taliban were simply travellers or devout Muslims (doctors, students, etc) who saw Afghanistan as the closest thing to an ideal Muslim society. They were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
True, some may have allied themselves with OBL and other militant leaders and elements have begun to work together. But a lot simply did 'go home' but they are not necessarily a threat.
A good example is that 'American-Taliban' (cant remember his name). He was a Muslim who travelled to Pakistan to study the language and Islam. He was shunned (I think becuase he was a poor student), so went to Afghanistan to learn were he was given a kalashnikov and sent to the front. He was not necessarily a terrorist or a threat.
This may sound like a cheap source, but watch the film 'Kandahar' and you will see my point.
-
Paratrooper01
- Member
- Posts: 1158
- Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2003 8:28 pm
- Location: Colly
- Contact:
Too much politics! I am there with the rest of Para regt to dish out some pain to those who want to try it on with us (without trying to sound too gung-ho, PC and all that tosh!). The drugs issue is purely moral in my opinion and (perhaps naively) if we can help in some way to cut the amount of drugs ending up on our streets in the UK then its a bonus.
Fair one, the Afghan history is very complicated and there is no way we are going to magically restore the country to the way it was before the Russian invasion and the Taliban rule because thats not going to happen. But perhaps in 10 years time the British Army will still be patrolling the streets (or hills) of Afghan in the knowledge that we have improved the stability and security of the country through our presence there, and if thats the case then its a job well done. I doubt very much Tony will be around to see it, but thats another debate!
Fair one, the Afghan history is very complicated and there is no way we are going to magically restore the country to the way it was before the Russian invasion and the Taliban rule because thats not going to happen. But perhaps in 10 years time the British Army will still be patrolling the streets (or hills) of Afghan in the knowledge that we have improved the stability and security of the country through our presence there, and if thats the case then its a job well done. I doubt very much Tony will be around to see it, but thats another debate!
Utrinque Paratus - READY FOR ANYTHING!
Paratrooper01
The debate ,Likewise.
I am in general agreement with you all.the point I wanted to make was that Blair made the decision to follow Bush into this c--- up and it annoys me that the Paras and their oppos have to spend then next ten years or so clearing up the mess and keeping order.The lads are worth better than that.
Will leave Iraq out for now
The debate ,Likewise.
I am in general agreement with you all.the point I wanted to make was that Blair made the decision to follow Bush into this c--- up and it annoys me that the Paras and their oppos have to spend then next ten years or so clearing up the mess and keeping order.The lads are worth better than that.
Will leave Iraq out for now
[img]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif[/img]
I'm working on it !
I'm working on it !
